Another subject that I can offer for discussion relates to the "M"-like shape next to "portas".

I thought that it might be not an "M" shape, but an ornate "N" shape instead.

In the figure attached I show with an arrow where the disruption point may be contemplated. The portion to the right then presents a quite normal "n" much like that in "anchiton" or "nim". What remains to the left then, presents a curious decoration - maybe marking an abbreviation, since a single letter would be out of place here, unless with a symbolic value.

   

On that odd "n/m" shape...

Many scribes only used capital letters for important things like names and the extra loop was usually only added on capital letters, although it was sometimes at the beginning of lines if it was poetry or some kind of list. It's also rather large in comparison to many of the other letters. I've often wondered if it's someone else's handwriting, but it's hard to tell with a single letter and many people write small at the left of the line and then bigger as the pen moves toward the right, so the change in size may not be unusual.

So maybe it's "n" and the writer decided to give it more importance (an abbreviated name?)?

or...

If it's a loop-m shape then it is unusual, just as the first shape in anchiton/michiton is unusual, because loop-m almost always has a tail on the right lower side of the "m" except in very old manuscripts (c. 1200s and earlier), in which case the tail on the right is not always there. I've searched very hard for loop-m without the tail and have extreme difficulty finding it in 15th-century manuscripts and even when I do, there's usually a hint of a tail.

Many times I've wanted to suggest that it might mean "Maria" since M was a frequent abbreviation for "Maria", but maria is written out in full on the next line and it seems less likely that it would be included twice AND there is the problem of there not being a tail on the letter (which means it's more likely "n" than "m").

Continuing with anchiton:

In the book "De Ornatu Animae" by one Fransisco Ortiz, 1549, the following passage is given (folio 44):

Quote:Qui enim verbo aut exemplo peccatores convertit, quasi dens Christi est, quo illius atteritur cibus. At veri servi Dei si transeunt per ignem & aquam, immo tanquam aurum puriores redduntur in fornace tribulationis. Ideo comparantur lignis sethin, ex quibus in exodo iussit deus fieri altare, illa enim ut dicit Lira, erant incremabilia, quod requirebatur, quia ignis semper erat in altari. Ideo Hieronymus ait, Altaris ligna, quae de lignis paradisi sunt, non cremantur igne vicino: sed puriora redduntur. Nec mirum hoc credere, cum etiam anchiton ligni genus vel ligno simile, quanto plus arserit, tanto mundius inveniatur. Haec Hieronymus: & habentur in glosa ordínaria. Et haec sat sit de ornamento pallii, dixísse obiter, cuius si anima non obliviscatur, utique nec Christi obliviscetur.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

As we see, he refers to Lira, and quotes him almost verbatim. However, he also refers to Hieronymus and to Glossa Ordinaria. The former being the earlier of the two, I think that Hieronymus' works are to be consulted, probably his comments to Exodus, in the first place.

I think I may publish some new findings about anchiton before long, and anchiton having been grown into a topic on its own, I will create a separate thread for it. I will not move anything from here, but will provide a short summary in the new thread.

Looking forward to it, Anton, I'm in need of a recap 

(22-10-2018, 11:11 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As we see, he refers to Lira, and quotes him almost verbatim. However, he also refers to Hieronymus and to Glossa Ordinaria. The former being the earlier of the two, I think that Hieronymus' works are to be consulted, probably his comments to Exodus, in the first place.

This looks related (Hieronymus in the previous sentence): "Imo dicunt esse aliud genus ligni, quod dicitur Anchiton" from "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." by Domingo Bañez.

Yes, this book by Banez was the next thing that I was going to mention, at a glance it looks like he is a bit more eloquent on the matter, however I did not try to decipher his Latin yet (I can't read freely).

However, I'm proceeding to create a separate thread - anything relating specifically to anchiton, please post it there.

EDIT: Oh, it seems we already discussed that book two years ago: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-10-2018, 04:09 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. anything relating specifically to anchiton, please post it there.

Maybe anchiton is the correct word.

I keep thinking about other alternative options.

1) First of all, I'm not yet convinced the two first letters are "an".
Another option is "au".

In this 15th century manuscript, we can read the word "auditorium".
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

   

The first letters of "auditorium" are very similar to "anchiton".

2) Secondly, I'm not convinced about the letter "h".
This letter seems to be added or redacted, as if someone wanted to cause confusion in reader's mind.

The letter "h" in anchiton is drawn almost perfectly for medieval times, and the "h" in "mich" on the last line is drawn the same way. The tail is normal for the time.

However, the shapes in front of it are not easy to figure out.

• It is not quite right for loop-m (which would normally have a tail).
  
• It is not quite right for "an" (the "a" is malformed and the "n" is not like the other ones).
  

Other possibilities are anehiton, nichiton, auchiton or mehiton.

---

Has it ever been suggested that it might be "auch i ton" or "auch iton"?  Also in ____[something]_____  ?

Or "au chiton"?

Yes, indeed. The writing is not certain. But on this ground exclusively we will not advance any further. The writing in this folio would not change, so the only other option is to investigate all opportunities from the contextual point of view. That's why I pick up anchiton so eagerly - I have an inner feeling that it just fits. And in the course of time we'll see if it leads us anywhere. I've also explored "nichiton" in another thread, but it does not look promising in this context so far.

Apart from that approach, I don't see what else we can do. Nick Pelling has some hopes in respect of full-featured multispectral scans, but I'm not so sure that they may show anything of value. Of course, when and if they are published, we will see.